OK.  I’ll run this by BillG as well.  I’ve created a ticket:

https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/1986

It’s a little more complicated than I initially thought (it’s not a simple symbolic link).  So we’ll not do this for 3.1, which we are in the process of finalizing.

— Pavan

On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres@cisco.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

Will the following tradeoff be acceptable to everyone?

* We allow users to specify a Fortran compiler using “FC” and “FCFLAGS”.  This will result in a wrapper called “mpifort”.

* We’ll maintain mpif90 as a symbolic link to mpifort for backward compatibility.

* If no separate F77 compiler is specified, we’ll use FC as the F77 compiler as well.  In this case, mpif77 will be a symbolic link to mpifort.

* But users have the ability to provide a separate F77 compiler, in which case a new mpif77 is created.

This way, we can still support compilers that have a different F77 compiler.  But for most compilers there’ll be a single mpifort (with mpif90 and mpif77 symbolic links for backward compatibility for some time).

That sounds perfect.

--

Jeff Squyres

jsquyres@cisco.com

For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

_______________________________________________

discuss mailing list     discuss@mpich.org

To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:

https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list     discuss@mpich.org
To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss